State ex rel. Fuller v. Eppinger
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Ohio?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Ohio. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ dismissal of Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus that he filed against LaShann Eppinger, warden of the Grafton Correctional Institution, where Appellant was incarcerated, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim.
In his petition, Appellant argued that he was entitled to immediate release because his aggregate minimum sentence for his 1992 convictions exceeded the allowable limit under former Ohio Rev. Code 2929.41(E). The court of appeals granted Eppinger’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant had not completed his aggregate maximum sentence, the court of appeals correctly dismissed his petition for failure to state a claim.
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Fuller v. Eppinger, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-2629.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-2629 THE STATE EX REL. FULLER, APPELLANT, v. EPPINGER, WARDEN, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Fuller v. Eppinger, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-2629.] Mandamus—Statute corrects minimum sentence imposed in excess of the statutory limit by operation of law—Court of appeals’ dismissal of complaint affirmed. (No. 2017-1386—Submitted January 23, 2018—Decided July 10, 2018.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 16CA010939. ________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, Michael Fuller, appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus that he filed against appellee, LaShann Eppinger, warden of the Grafton Correctional Institution, where Fuller is incarcerated. We affirm. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Background {¶ 2} In December 1990, Fuller was convicted of one count of robbery and two counts of aggravated burglary. The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas sentenced Fuller to 3 to 15 years’ imprisonment for the robbery and 5 to 25 years’ imprisonment for the aggravated burglaries, all to be served concurrently. In October 1991, the trial court suspended Fuller’s sentences and placed him on probation. While on probation, Fuller committed additional crimes. The trial court revoked his probation in 1992 and ordered the original sentence into execution. {¶ 3} On June 8, 1992, Fuller was convicted of rape, aggravated burglary, felonious assault, and attempted felonious assault in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. The court sentenced him to an indefinite aggregate prison sentence of 25 to 75 years. {¶ 4} At the time of Fuller’s convictions, the Ohio Revised Code placed a limit on consecutive indefinite terms of imprisonment: Consecutive terms of imprisonment imposed shall not exceed: *** (2) An aggregate minimum term of fifteen years * * * when the consecutive terms imposed are for felonies other than aggravated murder or murder. Former R.C. 2929.41(E), Am.Sub.S.B. No. 258, 143 Ohio Laws, Part I, 1308, 1440. In State v. White, 18 Ohio St.3d 340, 341, 481 N.E.2d 596 (1985), we held that the statute was self-executing and that therefore a minimum sentence imposed in excess of the statutory limit was not reversible error. {¶ 5} On direct appeal from his 1992 convictions, Fuller challenged his 25year minimum sentence as a violation of former R.C. 2929.41(E). The court of 2 January Term, 2018 appeals agreed, but citing White, held that there was no reversible error because “R.C. 2929.41(E)(3) [sic] is a self-executing statute which automatically limits the aggravated minimum term to fifteen years.” State v. Fuller, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga. Nos. 63987 and 63988, 1993 WL 437596, *10 (Oct. 28, 1993). {¶ 6} On April 8, 2016, Fuller filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Ninth District Court of Appeals, arguing that he was entitled to immediate release because his aggregate minimum sentence for his 1992 convictions exceeded the allowable limit under former R.C. 2929.41(E). Fuller and Eppinger both filed motions for summary judgment, and Eppinger filed a motion to dismiss. Eppinger’s summary-judgment motion included a letter from the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s Bureau of Sentence Computation, dated July 16, 2015, indicating that it had properly capped Fuller’s aggregate minimum sentence at 15 years. {¶ 7} On September 15, 2017, the Ninth District Court of Appeals granted Eppinger’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Fuller appealed. Analysis {¶ 8} Habeas corpus is generally available only when the petitioner’s maximum sentence has expired and he is being held unlawfully. Heddleston v. Mack, 84 Ohio St.3d 213, 214, 702 N.E.2d 1198 (1998). An inmate is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus upon completion of his minimum sentence. State ex rel. Lockhart v. Sheldon, 146 Ohio St.3d 468, 2016-Ohio-627, 58 N.E.3d 1124, ¶ 5. Fuller’s entire argument appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the difference between an aggregate minimum sentence and an aggregate maximum sentence. {¶ 9} Given that Fuller has not completed his aggregate maximum sentence, the court of appeals correctly dismissed his petition for failure to state a claim. Judgment affirmed. 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., concur. DEGENARO, J., not participating. _________________ Michael Fuller, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Maura O’Neill Jaite, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. _________________ 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
